I hate how in todays world it's impossible to be proud of your white heritage without being called a racist kkk member or skin head. I am white and I am ******* proud of it. It's not fair. Black kid: BLACK POWER! Latino kid: LATIN PRIDE! White kid: WHITE POWER! Everyone: RACIST ASS CRACKER! I am proud of my history and what we accomplished. I did not do those horrible things to people so stop ******* blaming me for them. Black people act like they were the only people who were enslaved. More than a million Europeans were enslaved by North Africans between 1530 and 1780. So for now on i'm going to personally blame every single black person I see for what their ancestors did to my ancestors 200 years ago... oh wait... that's ******* stupid... white people took over almost the entire planet and i'm damn proud of that.

But they're not your achievements.
I'm proud of my grandad for fighting in the war, i don't know how that could make me proud for being born a certain race.
Even if you had the best heritage ever, you could still be the biggest sack of **** to walk this earth.

Liberals don't understand such things. They use arguments they consider "rayciss" to counter arguments against them. So much contradictions in their flimsy ideology.

For example, take another one with race. A libturd likes to profess, as if he saying the most revealing thing ever said by man, "RACE IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT!" But this in itself is nothing and libturd proceeds to use the SOCIALLY-CONSTRUCTED concept of "unity" to say why racial distinctions are bad to begin even though the libturd does not touch the socially-constructed scientific models which show that race exists.

I am talking about contradictions in liberal thinking which manifests itself in the subject of race, which is certainly being talked about here.

For example, you did not respond logically to the anon above me. If race and ancestry means nothing, why do you blame White people for what they did centuries ago? Why are American schoolbooks looking to put blacks into everything, as if they accomplished something in European/American history other than doing menial work, if it means nothing?

Did my entire comment go right by your head? You're assuming that both stiltsformidgets and I are liberals that follow every liberal ideology by the book. Neither of us said that we blame whites for their ancestors wrongdoings. I don't and stiltsformidgets said nothing to make you assume that they do. The point is that racial pride is a stupid idea, whether you're white or a minority.

Alright, that's your opinion. It's easy for mongrel Americans to have no pride in their ancestor's accomplishments but don't force it on the rest of the world.

I was talking about an entirely different subject. If you weren't a liberal, you shouldn't have intervened. Plus you don't know what midgets is. He definitely sounded like a liberal and I responded under that interpretation. He has not yet responded himself, why come to his defense? Are you really not a liberal?

Wow, here we go with the assumptions again. How do you have any idea what my racial composition is? You don't. Unless you saw another comment of mine, you don't know if I'm American, and regardless you have no idea when my family even immigrated here. The entire idea here is that regardless of how great your ancestors' accomplishments were, you had no part in them. You didn't fight that war, your great-great-howevermanygreats grandfather did. You are only their descendant by pure luck.
I "intervened" because your argument was ridiculously flawed. I don't know what midgets is, but neither did you. You can't just assume someone is a liberal then attack them based on that. You created a strawman, and yet you accuse ME of being illogical. HA!

Would you like to debate me on the principles of liberal ideology so as to say my argument is flawed? Because none of your drivel hitherto has shown as such. This makes it so your motive for intervention still makes no sense. I was not the anon arguing with our friend midget. Do you know that we are two different people and I was only discoursing on his point? I was not feeding directly into the argument at hand but expanding upon a deviation, in other words. Indeed, I had not even read the entire argument when I replied to anon.

>You created a strawman, and yet you accuse ME of being illogical. HA!
I accuse you of being illogical because your only rebuttal to my post was, "What the **** are you even talking about?" You did not show the flaws of my argument except to say that you didn't understand how it applied to the discussion. And that's your problem.

(Sorry I'm taking a while to respond, my reply button is acting buggy.)
"Stiltsformidgets said nothing about racism. They simply said it's stupid to be proud of something you didn't personally achieve."
THAT was my rebuttal. You left out the important part.
I'm not arguing with you on the "liberal ideology" part as I agree that the line of thinking you referred to IS illogical. Because you were replying to a comment that was a reply to midget and you said "Liberals don't understand such things", it was implied that you were referring to midget as the "Liberal" in question. It seems that our major issue here is misunderstanding. If you had told me earlier that you hadn't read midget's comments I would have understood.

I am a bit notorious on FJ, especially on my last FJ account byposted (which someone got butthurt enough to thumbban by looking up all of my posts on a FJ board). But really, I am not a radical. Once I get to level 2 I'll get my way out.

**** that guy.
I've been on FJ a few years now, but I deleted my account for stupid reasons and browsed as an anon for a few months before I decided to start fresh again. That wasn't a big deal until all of the new thumbing rules cropped up (right after I created this account).

The reason were including black history in textbooks, is because its been written in a white perspective. This doesn't matter to me as I'm white, but minority students who find a lack of their own history in textbooks loose interest in history. Also just because it seemed like menial work doesn't mean they weren't important, they were apart of southern social class.

I haven't seen cases of the latter, but as for people trying to shame some part of history I only see that on liberal news. I live in the south and I've been to/participated in reenactments and I've never had anyone talk down about my past, of course my lineage doesn't have anything to do with american slaves so I wouldn't feel ashamed if the whole world said I should. Also look at all the southern flags, everyone of them has a part of the rebel flag in it.

My experiences in school are much different. On every lesson History would have connect itself somehow to blacks and women. It's silly. And yet the White accomplishments would be set back by charges of racism. The founding fathers, for example.

I don't know if your into reading history books on your own time but a good one is "Lies My Teacher Told Me". Its a little biased towards minorities but very little compared to other text, I mean really minute. If used properly with your local history text you get a very good balance. Btw when it comes to women and minorities they're really focusing on them now because of a lack in the past, they might overshoot it but its a self correcting process.

Apparently your under the influence. If so you type very well, and I'd like to suggest the same book above because, well everyone should read it because it takes american "heroes" and tells their human sides.

That was really an attack on your argument, as it had seemed at the time that you were calling midgets a crazy liberal (but we've cleared that up now). Not quite so with "mongrel Americans" and "drunk". That's all well and over now, though.

Maybe it has something to do with White People owning and Colonizing the rest of the World in the past few centuries, and telling their subjects they were genetically superior to them and institutionalizing a belief that White People were more beautiful. In other words, White People being proud of their Heritage can be seen as being happy with a history of oppression; while Latinos, Asians, Blacks, etc can be seen as taking pride in something that had incorrectly seen as bad.

Not that this matters, in this day and age (at least in North America) the color of your skin isn't that much of a barrier to what you can achieve. Also if you don't think that people look strangely at someone yelling Black Power or Latino Pride. Well, I suppose the grass is always greener.

Those were North Africans, aka Arabs. Not the Sub-Saharan Africans that the Whites Enslaved. Why don't you get out of your Trailer Park in West Virginia and learn something beyond two articles on Stormfront and Wikipedia. Also, about North Africa, the Europeans took over all of North Africa a bit and began colonizing it in the fashion of replace the Locals with White people until the locals rebelled and won Independence around 1950-1960. They also took over something like the rest of the World and committed Genocide all over it along with stunting their growth which created Cultural Scars that plague Africa and Asia to this day. Also, when it comes to the whole "We Enslaved you 200 years ago, get over it." It is more like 150 years ago, and we spent the next 100 upholding Institutionalized Racism that was meant to keep down and politically, Intellectually and economically repress you until recently. Expecting a clannish (Yay, puns!) culture to bounce back with any speed, without any real form of assistance is pretty stupid.

I live nowhere near the south. I live up North. Asians have committed Genocides too. So have Africans. Every race has done it, stop holding this **** against us. Spain also took over large amounts of the world. The Persian empire? Middle Eastern. Also a lot of the Ottoman Empire. They can bounce back just fine. Stop making excuses for them. I believe in self responsibility, taking responsibility for your problems and not blaming them on everything/everyone but yourself. The problem is these people have no ******* motivation. They'd rather bitch and moan about "DAH WHITE MAN TRYIN TO KEEP MEH DOWN!!!" because that's easier than actually TRYING in school and getting a god damn education.

If you're proud of being English/Italian/Jewish/Iranian/Whatever people will say okay that's neat.

However, white is a term that refers to a variety of cultures and just saying "Woo whiteness!" kind of connotates klannish master-race views. Also the klan only saw white protestants as white with everybody else (Jews, Arabs, Greeks, Italians, etc) being not white.

Meanwhile, since most black people in the US are of a single group (African-Americans, the people descended from southern American slaves, as opposed to other groups like Igbo or Jamaicans) Black is equated with African-American in the US (which annoys non-African American blacks in the US to a considerable degree, especially the ones who think African-American culture is weird).

I will however agree that the idea of a single Latino culture is a load of ******** . They're different from ethnic, cultural, and even a linguistic standpoint. Central Americans and Mexicans are Mestizo. Dominicans, Cubans, and Puerto Ricans are white and mulatto mostly. Peruvians and Bolivians are indigenous majority countries. 10-15% of Mexico doesn't even speak Spanish (indigenous peoples as opposed to mixed Mestizos that form the majority population). Argentines and Uruguayans are notoriously white. Meanwhile Caribbean Spanish is much louder and faster compared to Mexican-Central American Spanish (slower and more indigenous influened) and Argentine-Uruguayan Spanish is very Italianized. To compare it to English, the English language is mostly divided into accents (except for Ebonics which could be considered a separate dialect) whereas Spanish is more divided into dialects.

Great, you've stated that there was one ancestral population that we're all descendant from. Does nobody have a family they don't like?

There are a variety of cultures throughout the world that are incredibly different, and have conflicting ideas, behaviors, attitudes, and interests. To ignore that and just say that everyone was the same at one point is, for a lack of a better word, ignorant.

There have even been more recent divisions of initial populations within which the local groups don't like one another. Think of the various slavic groups. The Poles hate the Russians, the Croats and Serbs hate each other, etc. History, culture, and social attitude/norms are not just things to be ignored.

If you want us to all come together and sing kumbaya, you'll have to wait until the aliens come around and suddenly our differences pale in comparison to them (unless some human cultures are more receptive to ET than others in which case you'll have more division in human society.

Notwithstanding that it is absurd to say that all humans originated from the African race (there is a difference between the continent of Africa and Negroids), your post has much truth.

The Slavs, before the fall of the Roman Empire, were a more or less united ethnic group. Their exodus had them split into three sectors with very distinct cultures, even within themselves! Croats and Serbians, you say. What about Ukrainians and Russians? Poles and Czechs?

Egalitarianism has no factual basis in history. There never was a united African race living in harmony. That is absurd.

Except for the fact that this never happens, and a black or latino will just as quickly be called out for their racial pride shenanigans. Screaming "BROWN POWER" and waving a Colombian or Puerto Rican flag and singing the national anthem are the same thing.
And no, you can't wave the Confederate flag, you weren't even alive for it.